NSA Agents Told To Withhold Target Information From Those In Charge Of Oversight
from the and-the-hits-keep-coming dept
There's so much information that's coming out of last night's Washington Post bombshell that just continues to yield incredible information about what defenders of these programs have been saying as compared to what's actually happening. Here's another one. One of the documents released with the report, via Ed Snowden, shows that NSA agents were directly told to give their overseers as little information as possible. The document explains to agents the process for justifying why they were requesting targeting (i.e., a more detailed look concerning an individual or group -- not just at that person's communications, but potentially anyone even remotely connected to them), and makes it clear that they are to give the bare minimum necessary to fulfill their reporting requirements, but not even the slightest bit beyond that. In fact, they're told to give a single short sentence, and to make sure it includes no "extraneous information."The basic premise of this process is to memorialize why you the analyst have requested targeting. This rationale will be provided to our external FISA Amendment Act (FAA) overseers, the Department of Justice and Office of the Director of National Intelligence, for all FAA targeting.The document goes on to list a variety of "example" rationale sentences, all pretty short and sweet, which basically demonstrate to NSA agents how to remove any pertinent information for oversight, while still giving a "reason" for targeting someone. It's a lesson in stripping out information and, as the Washington Post notes, replacing it with "generic" info that will pass muster with the folks supposedly in charge of oversight. As an aside, while parts of them are redacted, there are a few "fake" names given, including "Mohammad Badguy" and "Muhammad Fake Name." No profiling there.
While we do want to provide our FAA overseers with the information they need, we DO NOT want to give them any extraneous information.... This rationale can be no longer than one short sentence.
[....] Your rationale MUST NOT contain any additional information including: probable cause-like information (i.e., proof of your analytic judgment), how you came to your analytic conclusions, any RAGTIME information, classification marking or selector information.
Either way, this once again suggests that the "oversight" going on here is something of a joke. Analysts are directly being told to be careful not to explain very much at all, giving the briefest ("one short sentence, no extraneous information") basis for getting access to all sorts of information concerning a "target" -- which might include a variety of communications and metadata concerning a huge number of people very, very, very loosely connected with that target. It certainly suggests that this idea of "oversight" is pretty laughable. Concoct a one sentence "rationale" that sounds vaguely plausible, and it appears that no one's going to ask any questions at all.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: justification, nsa, nsa surveillance, oversight, targeting, withhold information
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I think this is officially the worst crisis the US Govt is going under ever. It's a crisis of ethics, public trust and morals (as in the morals they always championed such as human rights, freedom of speech etc).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let me use this "one short sentence" approach:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let me use this "one short sentence" approach:
Block Google and all its various services via NoScript, Adblock, HOSTS file blocking, and any other tools or methods available to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let me use this "one short sentence" approach:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let me use this "one short sentence" approach:
No one is forcing you to use Google's products so you can even opt out of their information gathering by not using their products.
The NSA only lies to you about what they gather, gives you no way to opt out and lies to you more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let me use this "one short sentence" approach:
Here's a single sentence: The Constitution limits the federal government, not corporations.
Here's another: Google doesn't have guns, jails, extraordinary rendition, or tax auditors to make your life hell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let me use this "one short sentence" approach:
Except google cookies are on pretty much all web pages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let me use this "one short sentence" approach:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let me use this "one short sentence" approach:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let me use this "one short sentence" approach:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let me use this "one short sentence" approach:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But the "Mission"
Similar to the mindset we've seen at the DOJ, "Must WIN at all Costs". This means innocent people get put in jail at DOJ, and for NSA, people lose all the rights granted by the Constitution that NSA is supposed to be protecting.
While it is an admirable but misguided goal, the NSA (plus NYPD and other law enforcement agencies) are trying to stop crime before it happens, to "you know", save lives. But they are doing it by taking away our rights.
While crime prevention is an admirable goal, they are not the pre-crime unit with people who can see the future. The worst part of it is that they are the ones who are committing the whopping big crime of violating the Constitution.
These revelations leave me thinking that they have a criminal lawyer sitting at there shoulder saying "Objection, don't answer that question" who also spent some time "prepping the witness".
The "good guys" who are supposed to be preserving our constitutional rights have gotten themselves so focused on "completing the mission" of saving the lives of everyone have lost focus of everything else. Including the fact that they are "in spirit" and "in fact" trampling the very Constitutional laws they are supposed to be upholding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe they should be looking for "Sven Badguy" or Lars Fake Name" instead?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oversight? Not happening!
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
Nothing there about "protect the people"...
So, these asshats are all (with a few exceptions) violating their oaths, and are thus liable for impeachment and recall from office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is, if you're not aware, the only valid link between the constitution and enforcement.
Who would possibly care about a constitution if nobody swears to uphold it?
I'm sorry that you're sick of it though because it is, in effect, the only thing that matters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oversight is impossible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oversight is impossible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To be fair
But then...
- the field is required to have 3 elements, why not have 3 fields?
- why is the justification in the comments field, not the shareable justification field?
- why the need for the TAR flag?
My thoughts are that the database was set up to receive detailed justifications, but the process has been evolved to put a summarised title justification there instead. I suspect that there are more flags like TAR that aren't being used (e.g. detailed explanation).
What this really comes down to is that the FAA overseers have been lazy in accepting this level of detail without further questioning. It suggests the entire process of oversight was running a finger down a column and saying "this looks ok - all nice and regular".
If no one asks for the information, why would they provide the information?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To be fair
It suggests that because that's the way it actually is -- but I don't think it's laziness. I think it's the intentional design.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To be fair
And I just noticed the last paragraph of the article sort of says what I meant in my post.
But that leads to asking what the "full recipes" actually say, whether overseers are provided with that info automatically or have to ask for it, and whether they every actually read it.
A lot of this is starting to reek of typical "big company" practices - work to the bare minimum; guidelines become strict rules; the summary report be all and end all. As such, that would make me less concerned about such practices. But then that further leads to bigger questions - why change the laws to accommodate such things? why hide them? why lie about them?
I think they started off going "yeah, we've got oversight and good practice coming out of ears. Bring it on!" Then they've looked at it and gone "Oh shit".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To be fair
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Normal SOP - Move on nothing new here
They don't want oversight. They don't like oversight. They like to do what they think they need to do and only subject themselves to providing the overseers with the legally required information. And not one single thing more.
And as much as I hate to admit it, that is actually logical. The people in Congress are largely elected based on some knowledge and a lot of personality. So 90% of time they really don't know what the heck they are looking at.
For example: Let's say you are computer tech. You fix a customer's computer. Do you explain to them all the steps you had to do to remove the 5000 pieces of spyware and viruses from there computer and why it was causing all the issues they were seeing? Or do you give them the simple break down. "Everything is fixed and your computer is running great now."
I know my answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Normal SOP - Move on nothing new here
If the customer asks, then yes. And that's the problem here -- the "customer" isn't asking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Normal SOP - Move on nothing new here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Normal SOP - Move on nothing new here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Normal SOP - Move on nothing new here
It's like the difference between 'You had some programs at risk, I updated them, you should be good'(Truth) and 'You had a whole slew of virus' and malware, and while I think I got them all, I'll have to come in regularly to make sure. That'll be $150'(Not so truth)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
memorialize
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Email your Reps. and Sens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Email your Reps. and Sens.
Did the (Rep./Sen.) swear an Oath of Office, and if so, what did it consist of?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing an Important Point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]